Esquire: The case for corn
Chuck Klosterman watched the "Live Green" Superbowl ad. Then he bought a flex fuel car. In this article from Esquire, he made an incredible argument for ethanol of the like I have never seen before. I think it reflects a lot of people that support ethanol. First, there is nothing technical in this article. He says there is a debate about emissions in one sentence in parenthesis and that ended that. The article is about the power of Culture.
Chuck says "culture beats strategy every time." "No business strategy can compete against the sheer power of everyone buying into the same ideas, working toward identical goals, and wanting the same things. A well-built machine is still no match for a living organism, because the organism can evolve over time." Live Green "is attempting to generate a hipster culture around corn."
He has "never experienced a marketing move that is aimed so directly at" his "life, quite possibly to the exclusion of everyone else in America." Why does he support ethanol? It's "neither environmental nor political. It's not economic, either." He likes "the idea of ethanol only because it seems like the last hope for the survival of small U.S. farmers, many of whom exist within a completely insane business model that's a product of their own efficiency."
If you are still anti-ethanol, cleanse your pallet with the video from CNBC's Larry Kudlow on ethanol. Pro: Lou Ann Hammond from Carlist.com. Con: Jeff Goodell. He wrote an article in Rolling Stone called the Ethanol Scam. All very logical, very political, very large scale with no mention of the struggling good 'ol American farmer. In fact, you could say it's lost in the discussion of big agro.
[Source: Esquire]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Charlie Peters 11:33PM (5/03/2008)
What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL
Reply
Charlie Peters 5:05AM (7/15/2008)
”Unlike MTBE, little is known about the impacts of ethanol releases into groundwater or the environment. However, because ethanol is the primary ingredient of beverage alcohol, which is classified by the California Proposition 65 Committee and other cancer experts as a human carcinogen, many are concerned about the possibility that ethanol may pose a cancer risk. Additionally, independent researchers have determined that ethanol in groundwater can extend plumes of other more potent gasoline carcinogens (benzene, toluene, etc.) up to 25%. In addition, ethanol is less effective than MTBE at fighting air pollution, and due to transportation and supply problems, will likely increase gasoline prices.”
Stella Sez, Hemmings Motor News, July 2000
http://clubs.hemmings.com/clubsites/capp/july.html
Reply
Jim Beyer 2:31PM (8/13/2007)
I don't really understand what this guy is saying. That if you believe in a bankrupt and untenable strategy it will magically work? I don't think things work like that. A lot of people put strong wishes into the hydrogen economy, yet that didn't work. Probably because it wasn't a very good idea. Well, ethanol isn't a very good idea either.
This isn't like the VHS vs. Betamax. Although Beta may have been technically "better", VHS was still pretty good, and some better marketing savvy probably allowed it to win. Ethanol (even cellulosic ethanol) is not in such a position. It doesn't make sense, and probably never will.
I care about the U.S. farmer too. But he/she would be better putting the efforts into renewable methane, which is a mature technology (unlike cellulosic ethanol) which can extract twice the energy conent from the biomass feedstock compared with ethanol. Furthermore, any cattle or dairy farm with more than 400 animals would greatly benefit from anaerobic digestion of animal waste to reduce polluction, concentrate vital nitrogen, and yes, produce methane.
What this author is suggesting is to follow a dream, that in the end, will make no sense. At the very least, this will be a big waste of time and money.
Reply
rgseidl 2:43PM (8/13/2007)
Why is it that US networks still think grumpy old blowhards like Kudlow who do nothing but shout down their own guests are in any way informative or entertaining? They are neither, just plain obnoxious.
Lou Ann Hammond, for her part, is clueless. China and Brazil do have industrial-scale plants producing ethanol. However, just like the corn-based industry in the US, theirs is based on crops rich in simple sugars. In Brazil's case, that means sugar cane which happens to deliver very high yields in the country's tropical climate.
Cellulosic ethanol, by definition, involves breaking down cellulose into the simple sugars glucose and xylose before fermenting that mix into alcohol. The technology exists (cp. Iogen) but it is not yet economically viable for industrial-scale production anywhere in the world. It's no accident that cows have five stomachs and still have to ruminate to get enough energy out of a diet of grass.
Brazil may well become the first country to achieve break-even, but it's not there yet:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/06/brazil_may_beco.html
Reply
Bill 2:49PM (8/13/2007)
Ethanol is just fine as a fuel additive (it sure beats MTBE), but not as a fuel.
Reply
Joseph 3:48PM (8/13/2007)
Ethanol is good, but not in larger numbers...
I've heard that 1/3 of our gasoline is mixed with 10% ethanol. To me that sounds like plenty enough since alrady something like 10% of our corn goes to ethanol. Anymore and I think it would be ridiculous. Food isn't fuel for cars!
That 10% increase, IMO, should be enough to keep the gov't satisfied and the farmers happy.
Reply
Bob from ALAMN 3:10PM (8/13/2007)
Let me explain it to you ethanol critics.
E85 is cleaner-burning than gasoline. Using E85 instead of gasoline reduces tailpipe emissions.
Perfect? No.
Better than gasoline? Yes.
Who am I?
Robert Moffitt
Communications Director
Clean Fuels & Vehicle Technologies
American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest
www.CleanAirChoice.org
Reply
MikeW 6:00PM (8/13/2007)
Cleaner burning?
Havent all vehicles had two way catalytic converters for ~30 years.
Havent all vehicles had three way catalytic coverters for ~20 years.
The move from carburetors to single point fuel injection, to batch mulitpoint, to sequential multipoint, to direct injection has helped out immensely.
All gas around here has been ~10% ethanol for ten years (Amoco Ultimate was the last to go), and if ethanol has such a high AKI, why isn't my mid-grade 95RON-90AKI, and premium 98RON everywhere (some places it is 93AKI).
Side gripe.
Reply
Chris M 9:08PM (8/13/2007)
Chuck says "culture beats strategy every time." He seems to be making a bandwagon argument, that we should support corn ethanol because it is popular and fashionable to do so?
Debate on this subject should be based on evidence and reason, not social appeal.
Reply
gnoble 8:52AM (8/14/2007)
I'm not sure if Ethanol is completely cleaner burning. A report came out on Green Car Congress a few months ago that said that Ethanol from rapeseed had stronger mutangenic properties than regular gasoline. Obviously this isn't corn ethanol - but it does show some unexpected outcomes of a biological fuel.
Reply
Charlie Peters 12:01PM (8/17/2007)
A Background Research Paper on Corn Ethanol
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/14/18440750.php
Reply
Damon 3:14PM (8/23/2007)
Ethanol isn't the magical solution, but I read Goodell's article and it was factually misleading as well as short-sighted.
One blaring statement was that ethanol "only reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 15% while fueling destruction of rainforests." Since the 15% number is for domestically produced corn ethanol, it can't possible be fueling rainforest destruction, because we have non. Likewise, in Brazil, sugarcane ethanol is nearly twice as efficient as so has a greater reduction on greenhouse gasses. The Brazilian government also claims that no land has been cleared from rainforests for ethanol production (though it likely still has an indirect impact).
He also tries to claim that the energy yield of gasoling is 5:1 vs. 1.3:1 for corn ethanol. This is extremely misleading, because energy you're inputting for gasoline is purely for extraction. No additional fuel is created from the energy input.
Reply
Charlie Peters 12:37AM (8/28/2007)
Some folks believe California corn for ethanol uses lots of water
Can doubling CA corn production this year leave the water we need as we increase future corn ethanol produced fron our corn?
Some folks are concerned
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Reply